Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology

被引:2
|
作者
Fang, Jennifer L. [1 ]
Umoren, Rachel [2 ,3 ]
Whyte, Hilary [4 ]
Limjoco, Jamie [5 ]
Makkar, Abhishek [6 ]
Yankanah, Rosanna [4 ]
McCoy, Mike [6 ]
Lo, Mark D. [3 ,7 ]
Colby, Christopher E. [1 ]
Herrin, Jeph [8 ]
Jacobson, Robert M. [9 ]
Demaerschalk, Bart M. [10 ,11 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Div Neonatal Med, Coll Med & Sci, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Pediat, Div Neonatol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Seattle Childrens Hosp, Seattle, WA USA
[4] Hosp Sick Children, Div Neonatol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Wisconsin, Div Neonatol, Madison, WI USA
[6] Univ Oklahoma, Hlth Sci Ctr, Oklahoma City, OK USA
[7] Univ Washington, Dept Pediat, Div Emergency Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[8] Yale Sch Med, Div Cardiovasc Med, New Haven, CT USA
[9] Mayo Clin, Dept Pediat & Adolescent Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[10] Mayo Clin, Dept Neurol, Coll Med & Sci, Scottsdale, AZ USA
[11] Mayo Clin, Ctr Connected Care, Coll Med & Sci, Scottsdale, AZ USA
关键词
implementation science; telemedicine; newborn; feasibility; teleneonatology; CRITICAL-CARE TELEMEDICINE; STAFF ACCEPTANCE; PROGRAM; IMPACT; CONSULTATION; CHILDREN; RATES;
D O I
10.1055/a-1656-6363
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable.
引用
收藏
页码:1521 / 1528
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology
    Fang, Jennifer L.
    Umoren, Rachel
    Whyte, Hilary
    Limjoco, Jamie
    Makkar, Abhishek
    Yankanah, Rosanna
    McCoy, Mike
    Lo, Mark D.
    Colby, Christopher E.
    Herrin, Jeph
    Jacobson, Robert M.
    Demaerschalk, Bart M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2021,
  • [2] Assessing provider perceptions of training: Initial evaluation of the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness Scale
    Cho, Evelyn
    Lyon, Aaron R.
    Tugendrajch, Siena K.
    Marriott, Brigid R.
    Hawley, Kristin M.
    IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2022, 3
  • [3] Provider-perceived acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of home blood pressure monitoring in Ghana
    Lawrence, Emma R.
    Atluri, Namratha
    Compton, Sarah
    Beyuo, Titus K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2022, 159 (02) : 603 - 604
  • [4] Evaluating the WeCare Program: Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility
    Makhtar, Tengku Asri Tengku
    Rahim, Mohd Zulkifli Abdul
    Dahlan, Akehsan
    Shamsuddin, Shaharum
    Nawi, Siti Nurbaya Mohd
    Sahid, Muhammad Hidayat
    ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOUR PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL, 2024, 9 (28): : 159 - 165
  • [5] Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication
    Welch, Mary
    PUBLIC RELATIONS REVIEW, 2012, 38 (02) : 246 - 254
  • [6] Provider Perception of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Transdiagnostic Intervention in a Youth Partial Hospitalization Setting: A Mixed Methods Implementation Process Evaluation
    Casline, Elizabeth
    Henry, Lauren
    Reynolds, Katharine
    Diaz, Kathleen I.
    Hawks, Jessica
    Anthony, Laura
    Kennedy, Sarah
    CHCO Partial Hospitalization Team
    PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, 2025,
  • [7] Physiotherapy student perceptions of the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of continuous adaptive assessment
    Bevan, Rebecca
    Pacey, Verity
    Fuller, Joel
    Lawton, Vidya
    Jones, Taryn
    ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2023, 48 (08) : 1268 - 1282
  • [8] Implementation Fidelity of Chatbot Screening for Social Needs: Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness
    Langevin, Raina
    Berry, Andrew B. L.
    Zhang, Jinyang
    Fockele, Callan E.
    Anderson, Layla
    Hsieh, Dennis
    Hartzler, Andrea
    Duber, Herbert C.
    Hsieh, Gary
    APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS, 2023, 14 (02): : 374 - 391
  • [9] Blurring the lines: an empirical examination of the interrelationships among acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility
    Fehlberg, Zoe
    Stark, Zornitza
    Klaic, Marlena
    Best, Stephanie
    IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS, 2024, 5 (01):
  • [10] Provider perspectives on a novel moral injury treatment for veterans: Initial assessment of acceptability and feasibility of the Impact of Killing treatment materials
    Burkman, Kristine
    Purcell, Natalie
    Maguen, Shira
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 75 (01) : 79 - 94